The thread about whether humanity is evil got me thinking about misanthropism. I didn't want to waylay the thread, so I created this one.
Misanthropism is the dislike for humanity. Generally, these people look at man's past as evidence for their dislike, and they believe that the Earth would be better off without humans. There's no doubt in my mind that humans have done a lot of awful acts and have been ignorant, but what would you expect? Were still in our infancy, and we still have a lot to learn. One person described historians as being sensationalists, and I believe it to be true. Historians archive what is the most interesting or the most important, and a lot of times, these things are gruesome and violent.
What would you like to read about more, how Julius Caesar defeated over 60,000 soldiers with 6 cohorts (6,000 horses) at the Battle of Alesia, or how Jonathan the Farmer brought an entire community together during a time of crisis? It's not accurate to judge humankind entirely by its recorded history. More people have died naturally, then people have died through war. 1/3 of the world was wiped out because of the bubonic plague, and that wasn't through war, but through a disease.
I want to cut this short, so where do you stand?
VoodooGamer
This is true - for a long time this was the case. However, advancements made in historiography have recognised this error, and this is why political hitsory is no longer the main focus. Since the likes of Marx and Durkheim, we have ceased to focus exclusively on the political and military aspects, and begun looking at jonathan the farmer in social, cultural and economic history.
The "historians" you refer to are a long dead breed, one which often (in ancient times i.e Tacitus and the like) was treated like a work of literature, not just history. Its part of the reason we dont even know that Julius Caesar defeated over 60,000 soldiers. It merely makes for an interesting story to people back then. But history has now become more scientific in its approach, using techniques such as dendrochronology, radiocarbon dating, archaeology, etymology, topography etc.
Human beings are only evil in the context of doing something deemed unacceptable in their own society. Or even in another. For example, back to Caesar - he found the human sacrifice practiced by the ancient Celts morally repugnant (which funnily enough he himself sensationalised in his own writings). But in Celtic society, sacrifice and ritual murder were very important in religious life. What is right and wrong depends on the society, and therefore humans as a whole cannot be labelled "evil" if there is no universal standard for evil. Even something such as murder.
Log in to comment